***Official H&F LC Thread***

I'm more concerned with starting off with convicted criminals and those who already have orders for deportation.

Families should be deported together or, preferably, should self-deport.

If we keep this system of allowing people who make past the border to stay, we'll never really have border security. We also can't expand legal immigration without getting control of the border and of illegal immigration.

See, you're no good at this:

No. No. No. No.

I never said that. In fact I specifically said that "burglars are 'uninvited guests'" was factually incorrect.

You could scroll up, but I'll make it easier and quote the relevant part:

It's true that you could come up with a better alternative term for burglar. And if you did, then I would agree with it. But they are most definitely not "uninvited guests". This is in contrast to "undocumented immigrants" who are most definitely "undocumented". Even you said so and you even explained why.

Dumb take. They were never documented because they illegally evaded the documentation process.

It's not a "take". It's a fact. You even seem to understand it:

Yes, that is true*!

*"Never" isn't quite right. There are exceptions like visa overstays, who were documented, but no longer are. But yes, many were never documented at all because they entered the country illegally.

Melk,

You've already taken the L via openly admitting the usage of propaganda terms.

Maybe be less of a ****ing ******?

LOL. One person's "propaganda" is another person's preferred term. People have different perspectives on things! All that matters is accuracy.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter". It all depends on what team you're on. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

Moreover the point I was discussing has nothing to do with immigration policy at all. I know, you didn't read the text walls. So the "propaganda" terms have zero to do with the point. But talking about those is a great way to avoid it!

Melk,

The difference in "framing" that has you moving this far on the euphemism treadmill is kind of the point; this is legitimately depressing, and part of the reason that the party with which I would have grudgingly associated myself in years past is a complete embarrassment now. This is beside the fact that your supposition that Harris has actual principles is belied by the fact that her entire platform has changed from five years ago for reasons (question mark [emoji780]). I'll hang up and look forward to your 750 word reply.

Sorry you feel that way. But LOL at "undocumented" being on the "far end" of the euphemism treadmill. It is also accurate, which apparently is the most rustling thing of all for Muny, Thremp, and I guess you.

You too, Monte? I don't know where the **** you guys are coming up with this supposed Harris love. I did not think much of her and thought she was a terrible candidate. I'm sure I said that at least a couple of times. Yes, the position changing had a lot to do with it (of course Trump has flip-flopped a lot, but no one GAF). I also think she would have been a better President than Trump. But I think Rich Muny would have, so it's not saying much.

Also, please don't tell me you're supposing Trump has "actual principles"*. That would actually make me sad.

*Obviously I don't mean this literally, I mean it how you meant it. I'm sure we can find a few things Trump and Harris have been consistent on throughout, but either say just about anything to get elected.

I think I might have come in under 750.

I admire the persistence on both sides in this debate. It's gone on far longer than I imagined

Melk's only chance of victory here is to never give up and I have faith that he will not be the first one to blink. Rich's commitment to the fray has been admirable

**** thots on god. I hope we get people into the attics and basements looking for folks like you.

You are the problem and should be removed.

tds helluva drug

test and gh

Dude, no one said the "undocumented" euphemism has no source. We said it's inauthentic, dumb, and comes across as an attempt not to discuss facts.

If Melk was a fact checker for the New York Times:

Cool.

Also cool. Irrelevant. You're definitely free to think those things. Doesn't make the term incorrect.

It's especially irrelevant in this case as I have discussed and posted all of the facts related to my point which again has nothing to do with immigration.

I love it that the best that you and Thremp can do is "Look at melk, he says 'undocumented'! It's not actually wrong. He also doesn't dispute the use of the word that I use instead. But because he uses that different term, everything he says is wrong. It's just logic. It doesn't even matter that the thing we are arguing about doesn't have to do with immigration policy specifics at all.".

Yes, this is how some Trump voters actually think.

That's the thing. It's very righty over here and everyone just goes with their team. You can't really judge by that. I mean some people who thought the guy who said in earnest "They're eating the dogs" won a televised debate in the US

I won the point a long time ago. Rich wants to talk about anything but the actual point we were talking about because it is irrefutable. Thremp doesn't even know what the point is, because he never bothered to actually read the posts involved. The best part of that was him firing shats at me while saying the CPI was a fine measure of inflation (which is what I was saying; Rich was saying the opposite).

I don't blame you for not following along. These text walls are AIDS. Here it is yet again, in case you missed it.

I should probably add
5. I'm not saying anything at all about the merits of either candidate's policies.

That should be obvious, but it has become painfully clear that it isn't.

Like the mother watching her son on the army parade ground and asks why every other member in her son’s squad is matching out of pace with her son?

Not exactly. Surely you're aware enough that if this conversation happened in a lefty space it would be received very differently.

But it's not like it wasn't obvious how this was going to go down. That's why I was focused on a point that no one really can refute. I'm having a good time. I don't interact with people like Rich Muny very much, so having a dialogue or whatever the fack this is, is quite amusing. It's like going to the zoo and seeing a panda. I mean I've seen photos and videos and I know they exist, but seeing a real one a few meters away is a very different thing.

You should get out more, Melk. There are more of me than there are of you.

LOL counting how many of you there are by the electoral college.

Do you really think the ratio is 226:312? Do you understand how the electoral college works?

Here's the relevant metric. Based on latest popular vote count:

Trump 49.9%
Not Trump 50.1%

It's pretty even, but still technically fewer of you. As I've told you many times, but I'm sure hasn't registered, I don't think Kamala is great, but in my mind she's better than Trump as are most people, even you.

LOL Melk. Trump got 2.5 million more votes than Kamala, and the third party voters you call "not Trump" KNEW Kamala needed their vote. They were really more "not Kamala" than "not Trump."

Oh, now we're doing people votes instead of electoral college? Impressive progress for one post!

You're stats aren't the most recent I've seen. Here's what I've got.

Also, I realize that this is going to be really difficult for you to comprehend, but it's possible for people to be both "not Kamala" and "not Trump". Anyway (as of right now, and it may change), more than half of people voted for someone other than Trump. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. That's yet another indisputable fact, but feel free to keep arguing it against it.

man i don't even know what point melk is trying to make. Is he honestly trying to say "people only voted for trump b/c they're stupid, if they were smart they'd have voted Kamala"? Whatever, grunch

I'll put this here b/c it's far more interesting and worthy of study than presidential politics LOL.

Well, you're not alone there. I have repeated it numerous times. Not sure what more can be done

You're very close, but missing an important detail. I was worried someone would make that assumption and I clarified in earlier posts (one of which was a response to you). I'm saying that but without the causation. So it's,

*Less intelligent and informed people tended to vote for Trump

It is NOT

*Less intelligent and informed people tended to vote for Trump because they are less intelligent and informed.

It is also NOT

*If you voted for Trump, then you are less intelligent.

I said nothing about the electoral college. I posted an image of Trump winning the election. Yes, it included the projected electoral college outcome. That's how we vote in America. LOL at how hard you'll reach for whatever you can find.

2.5 million more people voted for Trump than for Kamala. It's not that hard.

Except you failed to prove either, mainly due to your lack of critical thinking skills.

The four questions that were polled were all Kamala talking points. So, of course Kamala voters were more likely to have been exposed to them from Kamala's emails, watching MSNBC, etc. The underlying points of the questions were also biased toward Kamala, meaning Kamala voters were more like to see them as useful data points than were Trump voters. If you want to prove Trump voters were less informed, you'll have to do better than that.

Same for intelligence. You claim you weren't trying to argue that smart people voted for Kamala because they're smart and dumb people voted for Trump because they're dumb, but you keep saying it without saying it. You should have said Kamala's agenda is skewed toward the needs and interests of the elite and, as people vote their interests, you think more elites voted for Kamala. Then you could post those walls of text trying to correlate intelligence and levels of education.

Of course, if Kamala voters were really smart, they'd not have continually gone online telling everyone how smart they think they are and how dumb they think Trump voters are. Same for MSNBC, CNN, and Kamala's surrogates. It's wasn't a very good strategy for winning an election.